AI Insights on the 'Holocaust'

[WW2History]

You lie a lot about me supposedly making assumptions. I do not assume gassings, gassings are evidenced. You assume people were not gassed and left the camp, with no evidence as to what did happen to them inside the Kremas. You assume millions were not gassed, yet you cannot find any evidence of millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944. It is you, not me who does the assuming.

Wrong. You need to provide the substantial documentary and forensic evidence of such gassings. Especially when those on your same side of the isle admit that 95% were done for non-homicidal purposes, so where do you stand? What % were used for homicide? And if so, provide documentary or forensic evidence.

[Nessie]

You said

Name an SS guard who worked at an AR camp or Chelmno who states there were no gassings. Do the same for A-B, but remember it was a huge complex of camps, so only SS directly involved with the selection process and the Kremas are eyewitnesses.

Franz Suchomel was a Unterscharführer at Treblinka, directly involved in camp operations, including supervising prisoners.

In Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah (1985), Suchomel described Treblinka as a place where Jews were “processed,” but he never confirmed gas chambers in his own words.

Gustav Münzberger was an SS guard at Treblinka, worked near the alleged gas chambers supervising prisoner labor. During his 1961 trial in Düsseldorf, Münzberger claimed he “never entered the gas chamber area” and only saw prisoners working or being marched elsewhere. He didn’t affirm gassings. But surely he'd see the smoke of, well, 300,000 corpses in 5 weeks?

Münzberger’s testimony avoids confirming gassings directly—he didn’t deny them explicitly, but his silence on the killing process, despite proximity is suspect. Your “all agree” narrative falters here. An SS Does not need to be directly in the selection process? Surely you understand the amount of plomb that would come out from cremating 300,000 corpuses right?

The best defence used by many accused SS, was to claim that they had little to do with the gassings, they were under orders or even duress and they did not commit individual acts of cruelty or crimes whilst at the camps. Those three did not deny gassings took place and they did not offer any evidence of an alternative use for the camp. My claim stands as correct. Even when given the chance whilst on trial in West Germany, no camp staff diverged from the gassings.

You said

The documentary and forensic evidence corroborates the gassing narrative. It records mass arrivals, no corresponding mass departures and the mass theft of property that is inconsistent with resettlement, the construction of gas chambers in the Kremas and huge areas of buried cremated remains at the AR camps and Chelmno.

The 1943 “Vergasungskeller” memo mentions a “gassing cellar” in Krema II. But “Vergasung” means fumigation—Jean-Claude Pressac (Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, 1989) admits 95% of Zyklon B was for delousing vermin, not people (p. 15). Most chambers were for sanitation, not murder.

Yes, they built crematoria, but capacity claims are exaggerated. Disease deaths (typhus) explain high cremation needs, not genocide. I already provided you with the copious evidence on Typhus.

“Special Action”: Sonderbehandlung is vague—could mean delousing, quarantine, or execution, not gassing. No document explicitly says “kill Jews with gas.” Not to mention the vast majority of SS stated that there was no plan to do such.

You say mass arrivals with no departures prove gassing. Wrong. Anne Frank arrived at A-B, wasn’t registered, yet left for Bergen-Belsen. Subcamps and chaotic records account for others. Property theft? Consistent with labor camps—confiscation happened everywhere, not proof of murder.

The Documents are ambiguous—Pressac’s own work questions homicidal intent. Your “corroboration” is a leap, per usual.

I did not say mass arrivals and no departures prove gassings. You made that up. I said that is part of the circumstantial evidence. It is all the evidence from witnesses, documents, forensics and circumstances that prove gassings. No individual piece of evidence proves gassings.

The documentary evidence is of the Kremas being modified in preparation for a special action involving Jews, prisoners and Hungarians, which is to be kept secret and it required hundreds of workers on 12 hour shifts.

Those modifications involve the installation of heated undressing rooms, gas chambers, ovens for multiple corpse cremations and barracks for storing property. That is different from the normal operation of a crematorium.

There is then evidence of mass arrivals, selections and those not selected to work being sent to the Kremas. Those people drop off the doucmentary records kept by the Nazis, unlike the people who were registered to work at the camp.

Then 100% of the witnesses who worked there state the people not needed to work were gassed.

There is no leap, the evidencing is sound and when assessed together, the conclusion is obvious and inescapable. Revisionists have to jump through hoops, theorise and suspend all norms of evidencing, to make them think no gassings happened. My point about the strength of the evidence of gassings in the Kremas stands.

[Nessie]

....

You said

The Final Solution and motive to exterminate the Jews is well evidenced, from the Wannsee Minutes to the Einsatzgruppen OSRs.

Come on, you've read the Wannsee conference, there's no reference to a mass extermination, it was clearly about deportation and relocation. The Einsatzgruppen Reports are much better though, although everyone they killed were not innocent. Leading soldiers into ambushes, arson, communists, 150 Ukrainians murdered by 11 Jews, etc are just few of the reports listed. To call it extermination for the sake of being Jewish would be such a gross misrepresentation.

I can provide the reports if you'd like?

From the Wannsee Minutes, January 1942.

"Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"

The plan was to work Jews to death and those who did not die from work would otherwise be eliminated. How that would be done, was left vague by the very senior Nazis present. When they wrote that, the EG had been operating in the east for about 6 months. They had already shot hundreds of thousands of Jews, with the aim of making the east Jew free. Wannsee also references that, with the stated aim of "the expulsion of the Jews from the living space of the German people", the policy of Lebensraum.

The EG were not just shooting Jews who had ambushed soldiers, they were shooting all of them. Both the EG reports and Wannsee Minutes are clear, remove the Jews until none are left. There is evidence in the east that the Jewish population plummeted and that there was a lot of support from local people, such that many joined with the Nazis in shooting the Jews.
Entire populations were being shot, with EG reports differentiating Jews from partisans and Communists.

Your hypothesis that only Jews who faught back being shot and millions of Jews being resettled there, is contradicted by the evidence of what took place.

You said

Again, hearsay, as none were inside a Krema, or in Olszuk's case, inside TII. You are using the weakest form of evidence and you are merely evidencing that Nazi secrecy measures did help to keep what they were doing obscured even from people nearby to the killing centres.

Why are you ignoring what is being clearly stated? If upwards of 20,000 Jews were being killed a day they would have been witnessed. Joseph G. Burg literally interviewed hundreds of crematoria workers, and concluded: “No homicidal gas chambers existed.” If the operators didn’t know, secrecy wasn’t the issue.

Why are you ignoring this? You call these testimonies hearsay, implying they’re secondhand rumors? Hearsay is when someone repeats what they heard from someone else. These witnesses are giving firsthand accounts of what they personally saw—or didn’t see—while in or near the camps. Once again:

Maria van Herwaarden, a prisoner at Auschwitz I for two years, right next to Birkenau, she testified under oath: “I did not ever see any indication of a mass murder or extermination of Jews.” That’s her direct observation.

Marian Olszuk worked daily near Treblinka and said: “I never noticed any signs of homicidal activities.” He’s reporting what he saw with his own eyes.

Joseph G. Burg Interviewed crematoria workers at Auschwitz and Majdanek in 1945—people who were inside the facilities. They told him no homicidal gas chambers existed. Those workers were firsthand eyewitnesses.

Cremating thousands of bodies daily produces massive smoke and a stench you can’t miss. Van Herwaarden was a mile from Birkenau’s crematoria—if mass burnings happened, she’d have seen the sky darken and smelled the burning flesh. She didn’t. Treblinka was a tiny 20-acre camp with little cover. Olszuk worked right beside it. If 800,000 were burned on pyres, the smoke and glow would’ve been visible for miles. He saw nothing unusual. Mass murder means constant activity—trains rolling in, guards barking orders, fuel deliveries. Göckel, Belzec’s station master, handled train traffic. If 600,000 were exterminated, he’d have noticed trains arriving full and leaving empty. He called it a “transit camp” instead.

I am waiting for you to name, quote and link to a crematorium worker. You say there are hundreds of them and since they worked inside the Kremas, they are eyewitnesses.

The other witnesses are not eyewitnesses to what happened inside, they are witnesses to what happened outside, and are part of the circumstantial evidence. That they did not see much fits with the secrecy of the operation of those places.

Van Herwaarden was at the camp from December 1942 to January 1945. The Kremas operated for about 18 months 1943-4. Exactly where she was living and working during that period is unknown. As an Austrian criminal prisoner, she was not subject to the same conditions as the Jewish prisoners. She stated she was told she would be gassed on arrival, but with that not happening, and when she arrived, only very limited gassing operations had started, she would think of them as distant rumours. Her access to the Central Sauna and other care was because she was a privileged prisoner. She worked with other privileged prisoners, including some Jews.

https://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/21herwaarden.html

She was never at the Kremas, so she is a witness to conditions in the camp, which were very poor, many deaths from disease and rumours of gas chambers. That makes her little different to many other witnesses from the A-B camp complex, such as British POWs imprisoned there.

Both her and Olszuk are testimony to how the secrecy that the Nazis operated the camps under, worked at the time. They are witnesses who are relating what they knew and saw at the time, without adding information they subsequently found out about. Witnesses will do that, add information to their testimony as if they knew it at the time, when they found out about it later.

[Nessie]

...

You said

There are evidenced secrecy measures for the death camps, which means prisoners and even some staff not knowing what was happening is to be expected. Vrba and Wetzler gathered information, mostly hearsay and related that in their reports.

That’s nonsense. Mass murder of this magnitude couldn’t be concealed from those on the ground. Auschwitz-Birkenau was a huge complex. Prisoners and locals were all around. If 1.1 million were gassed and burned, the smoke would’ve choked the region. Van Herwaarden and others inside the camp saw no such thing.

Treblinka was barely 20 acres, surrounded by open fields. Olszuk passed daily—if pyres were blazing, he’d have seen it. He didn’t. hey documented deportations, built huge crematoria, and moved thousands of prisoners openly. If they wanted secrecy, they failed miserably—yet these witnesses noticed nothing suspicious.

Pery Broad, an SS officer at Auschwitz, provided detailed gassing descriptions, but British records note: "Perry Broad has recently given much useful information. He should therefore receive as good treatment as is possible within ALTONA Prison." This indicates his testimony was incentivized, not voluntary, blurring the line between coercion and cooperation.

This is only when we KNOW about it, we do not know, if not written, what other incentives were given for such, especially when others were treated brutally.

You are presenting evidence of how the secrecy of the operations worked, with two people who were nearby, but did not see anything at the time, that gave them reason to know about the mass killings. Both Van Herwaarden and Olszuk give very limited details about what they saw and when. Their interviews were very poorly done, leaving huge gaps, resulting in little information. Were they ever in a position to see transports? We do not even know that. Neither of them provide any information that contradicts other evidence about the operations of Birkenau and TII.

As for Broad, your complaint is he was incentivised, as opposed to coerced. You constantly seek excuses to disbelieve, rather than adopt a neutral approach and use corroboration. Broad is corroborated.

You said

You don't like corroboration, because it takes your opinion out of the equation, and you need your opinion to support your illogical argument from incredulity. Just because you believe a witness lied, no matter how valid your opinion is of their credibility and accuracy, you need evidence to prove they lied and you do not have any.

The documentary and forensic evidence, which we both agreed is superior evidence, proves them wrong. Fellow survivors caught in their lies add even more scrutiny, and then other survivors BEING there and denying it put the nail in the coffin. There was am alleged 800,000 deaths at Treblinka, but 1945 Soviet digs and later scans found minimal remains, far less than expected. Bełżec and Chełmno show limited bones and ash, not matching claimed scales.

This isn't just my opinion dude, read the reality of the situation and have a more nuance view instead of strictly sticking to this Holocaust Orthodoxy. Many SS accounts were extracted under duress, beaten by the British, admitting to 2.5 million gassed (later revised to 1.1 million). But some, like Richard Baer, denied knowledge in less coercive settings, dying before trial in 1963. Hans Aumeier initially denied gassings, only confessing under pressure. These cases show not all SS agreed, and coercion taints the narrative.

You don’t need to be inside a burning building to see the flames. Their proximity was enough, and their silence damns your narrative.

The documentary and forensic evidence corroborates the witnesses. Archaeological excavations have traced huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains, making them the largest mass grave sites in history. No other mass death has produce that amount of disturbed ground for burials. You cherry-pick the most minimal dig, to suggest only minimal remains were found.

After complaining about incentivised testimony, you switch to complaining about coerced testimony. Both are wrong, but there is a way of determining whether the testimony is truthful or not and how accurate it is. Corroboration. You evidence that no matter the circumstances under which testimony was obtained, Nazis either denied knowledge of, responsibility for, or admitted to, gassings. No one ever came up with another process taking place, inside those places. That is why revisionists fall apart and end up with all sorts of competing theories, when asked to evidence and prove what happened.

You said

You then make a false analogy. Witches are a physical impossibility, Germans building gas chambers and transporting, gassing and cremating large numbers of people are not a physical impossibility.

It is a physical impossibility to cremate 500,000 corpses in 3 weeks.

Where is it claimed that happened?

[Nessie]

....

You said

Ironically and hypocritically, you then criticise witnesses as repeating hearsay and fading memories, as you rely heavily on witnesses who saw nothing and were not in the places where gassings actually took place, so their evidence is hearsay!

I'm using witnesses ONLY because you so heavily rely on them. And since you do, I provided you contradictory eyewitnesses, which by the way, you've clearly walked back significantly from your original statement you made that sparked this debate.

You have not provided contradictory witnesses, you have provided witnesses who said they did not see anything they regarded as suspect, in very poorly written testimony. A contradictory witness is one who says something that is opposite to the given narrative. Olszuk would be contradictory, if he talked about transports full of people leaving TII. Instead, he says nothing at all about the transports. Van Herwaarden would be contradictory if she said she saw people not selected to work, being marched back out of Birkenau.

I'd actually much rather ignore all witnesses and stick to the forensics and documentary evidence, why don't we do that then? That will not make it any easier for you.

That is what you like to think. But, there is forensic evidence of Zyklon B being used at the Kremas, huge areas of buried cremated remains at the AR camps and documents recording mass transports to those places and the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas.

Again, you are revealing your ignorance of the field of witness testimony, memory and recollection. It is quite normal to ask 5 witnesses to estimate something and to get up to 5 different answers. I would be suspicious, if they all gave the same answer, as that would suggest collusion.

I am not sure if you have got your post layout correct, as that is something I would say.

Those witnesses all agree that there were gas chambers. They corroborate. If you spent time listening to be people give evidence in court, where they all describe the same incident, you would soon learn how much people can vary in the detail. Your ignorance has caused you to incorrectly assess the witness evidence.

The witnesses objectively are wrong. Especially those of the Sonderkommando.

Tauber said in his deposition

“Generally speaking, we burned four or five corpses at a time in one muffle, but sometimes we charged a greater number of corpses. It was possible to charge up to eight ‘muselmanns’. Such big charges were incinerated without the knowledge of the head of the crematorium during air-raid warnings in order to attract the attention of airmen by having a bigger fire emerging from the chimney. We imagined that in that way it might be possible to change our fate.”

This witness is objectively wrong. Crematorium chimneys do not emit flames, It is also impossible to push eight corpses into a cremation muffle whose door is just two feet wide and two feet high. Tauber and his co-workers would have been able to push eight corpses into each muffle and get a huge blaze going, any plane of whose approach they claim to have heard would have long since flown away. Such testimonies are, to use Pressac’s words, “nothing but downright lies and pure invention.”

Getting it wrong does not mean lying. Your incredulity about the witness descriptions has no evidential value.

Proximity Trumps Your “Inside Only” Obsession
You keep harping that my witnesses weren’t inside TII or Kremas, so their denials mean secrecy worked. Wrong. If gassings happened:
Smoke and Chaos: Cremating 25,000 daily at Birkenau or 800,000 at Treblinka would’ve filled the sky with smoke and noise. Van Herwaarden (near Birkenau) and Olszuk (near TII) would’ve noticed from outside. They didn’t.

Insider Denials: Burg’s crematoria workers—inside the Kremas—denied gassings. That’s not secrecy; that’s evidence against your claim.

We do not know how proximate Van Herwaarden was to the Kremas. We do know from documentary evidence that activity there was to be kept physically obscured from the rest of the camp and operations were not to be spoken about openly. Oslzuk did speak to hearing people in distress inside TII. As for smoke, the statements from those two are very limited, but Van Herwaarden did speak of smoking chimneys, but that may have been Monowitz and Olszuk spoke of clothing being burned. Regarding the supposed chaos, there is a lot of evidence of how the Nazis kept control of arrivals and how organised they were, to prevent chaos.

Maybe one day you will link to the crematory worker evidence, until then....

Answer this
Tauber also said in his testimony:

“Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, **five to seven minutes was allowed to burn one corpse** in a muffle.”

Burning a corpse to ash in only five to seven minutes is scientifically and technically impossible, even with advanced cremation technology. Let's pause here for a moment:

Do you believe Tauber, a firsthand account to these mass gassings, do you believe he cremated multiple corpses in 5-7 minutes?

I believe that multiple corpses were cremated at a time, but not constantly at that rate. The 5 to 7 minutes is an average of multiple corpse cremations, over half an hour, or longer, not a complete cremation to ash of one corpse.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

"...the incineration of this charge took about 40 minutes. In continuous operation, we could burn two charges per hour. According to the regulations, were supposed to charge the muffles every half hour. Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, 5 to 7 minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle. Because with that quantity we were obliged to work without interruption, for as soon as the last muffle was charged, the contents of the first had been consumed. In order to be able to take a pause during the work, we would charge 4 or 5 corpses in each muffle. The incineration of such a charge took longer, and after charging the last muffle, we had a few minutes' break until the first one was again available."

Tauber also estimated that 4 million people were gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenau:

“During my time in Auschwitz, I was able to talk to various prisoners who had worked in the Krematorien and the Bunkers before my arrival. They told me that I was not among the first to do this work, and that before I came another 2 million people had already been gassed in Bunkers 1 and 2 and Krematorium I. Adding up, the total number of people gassed in Auschwitz amounted to about 4 million.”

Who better would know the death count of Auschwitz? Probably Rudolf Hoss, and firsthand witnesses to the claimed mass gassings, yet both, objectively lied. Not even you believe this account, yet you choose to believe it when it suits you. You claimed I do the same thing, I do not care for the witnesses, you do, that is why I am using your own witnesses that directly go against what you state, so much so you've ran from your generalized argument and had to specify it so specifically.

Witnesses overestimated how many were killed. I would expect that. Those witnesses do not go against me! They give evidence that mass gassings took place!!!!!!!!

Answer this

He's not the only lying first-hand account witnesses of mass gassings. Dov Paisikovic, who as a member of the Sonderkommando  claims to have taken part in the incineration of the corpses of gassed people in Crematory II of Auschwitz-Birkenau (Poliakov 1964, p. 162):

“Cremating a corpse lasts roughly four minutes.”

The cremation duration quoted by Poliakov is therefore approximately fifteen times less than the actual duration. This cannot be called an “error” or “exaggeration”; Paisikovic has lied through his teeth.

Once again do you believe what he saying here?

Yes, as he, like Tauber, is averaging multiple corpse cremation times. If you cremate 4 corpses for 30 minutes, and say that is 7.5 minutes per corpse, that is wrong, it is 30 minutes per corpse. They are just breaking down the process, which was split between the corpse being placed into the top oven, then falling through to the ash box, allowing more corpses to be introduced. You think they mean it literally took minutes per corpse.

The rest of what you said is just nonsense and has no backing you've provided.

So you like to assert, but you are completely wrong. The evidence is for mass gassings and cremations, and not any other process.

[Nessie]

You lie a lot about me supposedly making assumptions. I do not assume gassings, gassings are evidenced. You assume people were not gassed and left the camp, with no evidence as to what did happen to them inside the Kremas. You assume millions were not gassed, yet you cannot find any evidence of millions of Jews still alive in camps and ghettos in 1944. It is you, not me who does the assuming.

Wrong. You need to provide the substantial documentary and forensic evidence of such gassings. Especially when those on your same side of the isle admit that 95% were done for non-homicidal purposes, so where do you stand? What % were used for homicide? And if so, provide documentary or forensic evidence.

I do not know what percentage of Zyklon B was used for gassing people. I have provided extensive documentary and forensic evidence, you just refuse to accept I have, as you deflect from your inability to evidence what did happen. You call yourself WW2History, but you fail in the basic task of any historian, you cannot evidence what happened.

[Nessie]

You need evidence he knowingly and willingly claimed something he knew to be untrue, to prove a lie. Where is your evidence he knew that figure to be false and he gave it willingly?

Well firstly, the fact that mainstream historians don't even accept his number as valid. And secondly, he said so?

Signatures of two witnesses and by Captain William Cross’s assertion that Höss had made this statement “voluntarily”!

Höss wrote about it in his Cracow notes:

“I do not know what is in the protocol, although I signed it.”

At Nuremberg, von Schirmeister was a witness to the defense and was about to be released soon. In the car carrying him, he sat in the backseat together with Höss, with whom he could speak freely during transit; in particular, he remembered Höss’s following outburst (Document 3):

“On the things he is accused of, he told me: ‘Certainly, I signed a statement that I killed two and a half million Jews. But I could just as well have said that it was five million Jews. There are certain methods by which any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.’”

The last part directly answers your question.

That is not evidence Hoess lied and there were no gassings at A-B. It is evidence he gave an inflated death toll to his British interrogators, under duress. That is not evidence of a lie. To prove a lie, you need to evidence what happened at the camp and that there were no gassings.

I do not think that you know enough about evidencing to be able to do that. Without evidence, you cannot prove a lie.

[Nazgul]

It is evidence he gave an inflated death toll to his British interrogators, under duress. That is not evidence of a lie. To prove a lie, you need to evidence what happened at the camp and that there were no gassings.

He gave what he thought they wanted to hear under torture; his son was held captive by the British. Confessions under torture, makes the investigators criminals. Nothing happened at the camp except invalid euthanasia. No matter what evidence is given, there are always gaps, this is what Nessie and his kind exploit, the Holocaust of the Gaps and of course the witnesses. There is nothing else.

[WW2History]

You said

I do not know what percentage of Zyklon B was used for gassing people. I have provided extensive documentary and forensic evidence, you just refuse to accept I have, as you deflect from your inability to evidence what did happen. You call yourself WW2History, but you fail in the basic task of any historian, you cannot evidence what happened.

You believe the tradtional Holocaust narrative from the looks of it, where do you deviate?

There are many replies you made not worth replying to, for they are simply your opinions and unsubstantiated.

Wansee

"Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"

When I read this, I don’t see an explicit call for mass murder through gas chambers or firing squads. Instead, I see a plan for forced labor—harsh, brutal labor. If they wanted to wipe everyone out right away, why bother talking about "work columns" or "appropriate labor" I don’t see any mention of extermination camps or gas chambers. The entire conference is focused on deportation "to the East" and labor allocation. That lines up with a policy of exploitation and deportation more than immediate annihilation.

You said

The EG were not just shooting Jews who had ambushed soldiers, they were shooting all of them. Both the EG reports and Wannsee Minutes are clear, remove the Jews until none are left. There is evidence in the east that the Jewish population plummeted and that there was a lot of support from local people, such that many joined with the Nazis in shooting the Jews.

The protocol talks about deporting Jews “to the East” for labor, with “a large portion” expected to die from “natural causes” during road work. Harsh labor plan exploitation, not extermination. The interpretation says it’s “clear” the goal was to remove all Jews until none remain, implying total annihilation. But that's simply your interpretation.

If the plan was to kill every last Jew, why focus on labor columns? Why not just say “liquidate”? This was a private meeting—Heydrich, Eichmann, no need for euphemisms, “remove” here means displacement—pushing Jews out of German space.

The claim is they were “shooting all Jews,” not just threats like ambushers is utterly wrong.

EM No. 20: 11 Jews and 1 Ukrainian shot for murdering 150 Ukrainians in Stryi. EM No. 47: 2 Jewish Communists ambushing troops—executed. EM No. 131: a Jew with enough strychnine to poison 1,000—killed. These aren’t random Jews; they’re targeted for specific acts—arson, sabotage, partisan ties, NKVD links. EM No. 133 lists Jews shot for explosives, hiding outside ghettos, or propaganda—not just for being Jewish. Some cases are flimsy, like “price-gouging” in No. 146, but I still see reasons given, not blanket massacres. If the EG’s job was to wipe out every Jew, why bother documenting these justifications? This is wartime reprisals against enemies, Jews often among them, than a systematic “kill all” genocide.

Headland’s Messages of Murder pegs the EG toll at 1.1 million—Jews and non-Jews. He admits the reports are a mess: numbers don’t add up, commanders exaggerated kills, no clear total possible. Mattogno hammers also says the data’s “chaotic,” totals clash with details, reliability’s dubious. Maybe they hit thousands, but “all of them”?

The EG assumption death count by Headland is 1.1 million which includes everyone—partisans, communists, locals. Look at No. 146: Jews and Russians shot together for partisan work. No. 92: a half-Jew and NKVD collaborators executed.

"The EG were not just shooting Jews who had ambushed soldiers"

Substantiate that claim that the majority were done as such by the EG.

You said

The documentary and forensic evidence corroborates the witnesses. Archaeological excavations have traced huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains, making them the largest mass grave sites in history. No other mass death has produce that amount of disturbed ground for burials. You cherry-pick the most minimal dig, to suggest only minimal remains were found.

When you say something, do as I do and provide a source or link.

You said

After complaining about incentivised testimony, you switch to complaining about coerced testimony. Both are wrong, but there is a way of determining whether the testimony is truthful or not and how accurate it is. Corroboration. You evidence that no matter the circumstances under which testimony was obtained, Nazis either denied knowledge of, responsibility for, or admitted to, gassings. No one ever came up with another process taking place, inside those places. That is why revisionists fall apart and end up with all sorts of competing theories, when asked to evidence and prove what happened.

I find this ironic when you've provided none. Where is your forensic and primary documentary evidence for gas chambers as Auschwitz? You've just been talking and stating opinions with no substance.

You said

A contradictory witness is one who says something that is opposite to the given narrative.

Each witness deviates from the narrative’s expected uniformity—location, mechanics, numbers, timing, effects. “Opposite” means their claims can’t coexist with the standard story without breaking it. If Cohen’s 750 fit but Müller’s 3,000 do too, the chamber’s size or purpose shifts. If gas drops directly (Nadjari) but also through pillars (Tauber), the method’s inconsistent. They change the entire death count, which you've also failed to tell me what you believe the death count is. A contradictory witness, per your definition, says something opposite to the given story—and these do, with its mechanics, scale, or methods. That’s why they’re contradictions, plain and simple.

Again, let us go to Nurmeberg for witnesses you love to use, electric zappers, atomic bomb, brain-basher, tree-climbing killings, human skin mass production, steam chambers, are all these true as well? No evidence supports electric devices, an atomic bomb (Germany couldn’t build one), or a pedal-driven machine killing 840,000. Steam at Treblinka?

You said

That is what you like to think. But, there is forensic evidence of Zyklon B being used at the Kremas, huge areas of buried cremated remains at the AR camps and documents recording mass transports to those places and the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas.

Yes delousing chambers existed and many people died from Typhus. Zyklon B was a pesticide used across camps for delousing clothes, bedding, and barracks to fight typhus, which was rampant. The Kremas had delousing chambers; blueprints and documents show them, like the “Entlausungskammer” in Krema I. Traces of hydrogen cyanide (HCN, Zyklon B’s active ingredient) in the ruins? That’s expected, delousing left residues too. The 640 µg/kg peak in Krema II is an outlier—most samples were 0-50 µg/kg, often undetectable. Homicidal gassing, per the narrative, happened hundreds of times (Höss claimed 400+ uses), with 5-7 kg of Zyklon B per gassing (IMT testimony). That’s a lot of HCN, the lethal dose is 300 ppm in air, achieved in minutes with 1-2 kg in a 200 m³ chamber. Repeated exposure should bind HCN to iron in walls (forming Prussian Blue or other compounds), leaving higher residues. Delousing was used in higher doses (10-20 g/m³) for hours—explaining the 900 µg/kg in Block 3. The Krakow levels in Kremas are closer to incidental exposure than mass gassing’s scale. And this is from The Krakow Institute. Delousing chambers consistently showed 300-900 µg/kg—orders of magnitude above Krema II’s average.

As for the “huge areas of buried cremated remains” at Aktion Reinhard (AR) camps, there are ash and bone fragments—ground-penetrating radar and digs, and found pits. But “huge” is vague, and the numbers don’t add up to the millions. Treblinka’s pits cover maybe 20,000 square meters—big, but cremating 800,000 (per mainstream) would need industrial-scale ovens, not the open pits described. Wood requirements alone—300 kg per body, per incineration studies—mean millions of tons of logs, yet no massive deforestation or supply records exist nearby. Auschwitz had crematoria because disease killed thousands—1942-43 typhus epidemics wiped out tens of thousands, per camp records (e.g., 15,000+ deaths logged in 1942). Bodies were burned to stop contagion—same at AR camps, which were transit or labor hubs hit by outbreaks. The remains prove deaths, not gassing. No chemical analysis ties those ashes to cyanide—just burning, which fits disease control, not extermination.

Quite the opposite, the US sent a team of forensics investigators into the camps headed by Dr. Charles Larson. They conducted more than 100 autopsies at Dachau and twenty other camps. Not a single body showed signs of poisoning of any sort. Larson wrote a book, ‘Crime Doctor’, which is available on Amazon.

“I did a lot of toxicological analysis to determine the facts and removed organs from a cross-section of about 30 or 40 bodies and sent them into Paris to the Army's First Medical Laboratory for analysis, since I lacked the proper facilities in the field. The reports came back negative. I could not find where any of these people had been poisoned.”

In an interview with the Wichita Eagle, 1 April 1980, he called part of the holocaust a hoax.

Larson has talked little publicly about the war experience. One reason for his silence has been that his autopsy findings conflicted with the widely held belief that most Jews in Nazi camps were exterminated by gassing, shooting or poisoning.

Larson said…most died as a result of the conditions to which they were subjected rather than mass exterminations… autopsies showed that "death by gassing and shooting were rare. Never was a case of poisoning uncovered."

(Jane Floerchinger, "Concentration Camp Conditions Killed Most Inmates, Doctor Says," The Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980, p. 4C.)

A firsthand with the bodies itself?

You said

That is what you like to think. But, there is forensic evidence of Zyklon B being used at the Kremas, huge areas of buried cremated remains at the AR camps and documents recording mass transports to those places and the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas.

“Documents recording mass transports to those places” is your next point. The documents clearly show movement, not murder. The Höfle Telegram lists 1.27 million Jews “arrived” at AR camps by 1942. Arrived, yes—but killed? It doesn’t say. You assume they vanished into gas chambers, but no follow-up orders or death tallies confirm it. German rail records (like the Fahrplananordnung schedules) show trains to Treblinka, Belzec, Auschwitz—hundreds of thousands moved. But they also show outbound trains—e.g., Auschwitz to subcamps like Blechhammer or even Minsk, per survivor accounts and camp logs. Why transport people just to kill them? Typhus explains it better. Camps were quarantine zones or labor pools. The Wannsee Protocol (1942) talks deportation “to the East” for work, with “natural reduction” (disease, exhaustion). Mass transports fit that, Jews died en route or in camps from typhus, not gas. The documents don’t say “gas chambers”; they say “evacuation” or “labor deployment”, which I’d take them at face value over your insane assumptions.

“construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas.” Assuming you are leaning on Krema II’s “Leichenkeller” (corpse cellar) labeled as a “Vergasungskeller” (gassing cellar) in one 1943 document? “Vergasung” can mean fumigation—delousing with gas, not killing people. Krema I had a known delousing room; Krema II/III’s underground cellars were ventilated for storage or disinfection—HCN needs air circulation, which fits delousing specs (10 air changes/hour, per Degesch manuals).

Witnesses like Höss claimed gassing, but we both agreed he lied, and was coerced under torture.

No sealed doors or high HCN venting in “gas chambers” vs. delousing rooms support my view. The Kremas burned bodies, typhus victims piled up. The documentary and forensic evidence support disinfection, not extermination.

Revisionist are not a monolith, and my case is far more convincing to, what cannot be better described than your yapping of talking points everyone learned in Highschool, rather than an actual critical view of events.

You said

We do not know how proximate Van Herwaarden was to the Kremas. We do know from documentary evidence that activity there was to be kept physically obscured from the rest of the camp and operations were not to be spoken about openly. Oslzuk did speak to hearing people in distress inside TII. As for smoke, the statements from those two are very limited, but Van Herwaarden did speak of smoking chimneys, but that may have been Monowitz and Olszuk spoke of clothing being burned. Regarding the supposed chaos, there is a lot of evidence of how the Nazis kept control of arrivals and how organised they were, to prevent chaos.

I’d argue proximity isn’t necessarily the only issue—scale is. Van Herwaarden testified at Nuremberg as a Dutch Jewess in Birkenau. She was likely in the women’s camp, 500-1,000 meters from Kremas II/III. The traditional holocaust narrative claims 25,000 gassed and cremated daily—over 1,000 per hour. That’s 7.5 million kg of wood daily (300 kg/body) plus coke for 52 - ovens (52 muffles in Kremas II/III).

Even with trees or walls for “obscuring,” smoke would blanket Birkenau, visible and smellable from kilometers away, not just 500 meters.

“We don’t know her proximity” dodges the point, 25,000 bodies daily isn’t subtle. Documentary “obscuring” can’t mask that output.

You said

I believe that multiple corpses were cremated at a time, but not constantly at that rate. The 5 to 7 minutes is an average of multiple corpse cremations, over half an hour, or longer, not a complete cremation to ash of one corpse.https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

5-7 minutes to “burn one corpse in a muffle.” Modern crematoria take 60-90 minutes per body at 1,400-1,800°F (760-982°C) to reduce it to ash—bones included (per Cremation Association of North America). Auschwitz’s Topf ovens (Krema II/III, 52 muffles total) hit 800-1,000°C with coke fuel. A single body—70 kg average—needs 1-2 hours to combust fully; fat burns first, then muscle, then bones calcify.

Tauber’s “5-7 minutes” per corpse, even as an “average” in a multi-body charge, defies thermodynamics. Flesh doesn’t vanish that fast—4-5 bodies (280-350 kg) in one muffle over 40 minutes? That’s 8-10 minutes per body—still impossible. If you are so confident it is possible try it today with the same metrics, shock the world. Also, did you keep in mind that the Crematoria were not in service permanently? But often broke down? Crematorium I which had been taken into service on 15 March 1943 was already damaged after nine days, and the repair work only “neared completion” on 18th of July.

Tauber mentions "few minute breaks" with 4-5 corpses per muffle, two charges per hour , with breaks. Krema II had 15 muffles (5 triple-muffle ovens). That’s 60-75 bodies per charge, 120-150 per hour, or 2,880-3,600 daily at 24 hours. The holocaust narrative says 25,000 daily—way beyond this. But even 2,880 is laughable. And “breaks”? Crematoria burned typhus victims, not gassed millions. Auschwitz logs show 15,000+ typhus deaths in 1942, 50-100 daily across 52 muffles (Kremas II-V). That’s 1-2 bodies per muffle every 1-2 hours—doable, with smoke and ash matching Van Herwaarden’s “smoking chimneys” (See IMT Vol. 6, p. 111). Tauber’s 4-5 per muffle, 40 minutes, aims for 1-1.5 million (Piper’s total)—25 times higher. Wood needs: 300 kg/body x 2,880 = 864,000 kg daily. No forest or rail records support that. Typhus cremations need a fraction—15,000 kg daily.

Also, his “5-7 minutes” and “4-5 per muffle” clash with Höss (1-2 hours per cycle, coerced testimony) and oven specs (Topf engineer Kurt Prüfer: 1 body/hour max). The claim’s “average over 40 minutes” is a desperate patch Tauber didn’t say that; he implied per-corpse speed. Contradictions with other witnesses (Müller: 3,000 daily, not 2,880) and no physical evidence (Krema ruins show wear, not super-speed burning) sink it. HCN traces (Krakow 1994, 0-640 µg/kg) fit delousing, not gassing chambers. : His math is a clown show dude, 4 corpses in 30 minutes is 7.5 minutes each, not 30. Tauber’s 5-7 minutes isn’t an “average” over 40 minutes (his own quote says 40 per charge); it’s a per-corpse claim, and 30 minutes doesn’t fix it. It’s still too fast.

Even if I grant his 30 minutes per 4 corpses (not Tauber’s 40-minute charge), it’s still nonsense. Modern crematoria take 60-90 minutes per body at 1,400-1,800°F. Auschwitz ovens hit 800-1,000°C with coke. Four emaciated bodies (40 kg each, 160 kg total) need at least 1 hour—25 kg of coke per muffle/hour (Topf specs). His “split process” doesn’t change that—30 minutes gets you charred flesh, not ash ready for the next batch. Krema II’s 15 muffles at 4 bodies every 30 minutes = 120 per hour, 2,880 daily—far short of 25,000, and still impossible without infinite fuel and space.

Tauber said “5 to 7 minutes to burn one corpse” and “40 minutes per charge” of 4-5 bodies—self-contradictory. The response’s “averaging” is a retrofit; Tauber meant per-body speed, not a phase. Höss (1-2 hours/cycle) and Prüfer (1 body/hour) expose the obvious gap. HCN traces (Krakow 1994, 0-640 µg/kg) show delousing, not gassing chambers. Quit with this and substantiate your insane claims that you yourself claim to believe.

You said

I do not know what percentage of Zyklon B was used for gassing people. I have provided extensive documentary and forensic evidence, you just refuse to accept I have, as you deflect from your inability to evidence what did happen. You call yourself WW2History, but you fail in the basic task of any historian, you cannot evidence what happened.

Firstly, not a historian. Secondly, Inability to evidence?

Krema I’s “Entlausungskammer” (blueprints), Block 3’s high HCN (900 µg/kg, Krakow). Zyklon B shipments—19 tons to Auschwitz (1942-44, Nuremberg Doc. NI-9912), used across camps (e.g., Majdanek delousing logs). Degesch specs: 10-20 g/m³ for lice, hours-long cycles—matches high residues, not Krema II’s scraps (0-50 µg/kg average).

Auschwitz death books (1942-43, partial)—15,000+ typhus deaths, 20-50% mortality in outbreaks (Red Cross reports). Epidemics raged—1942 peak, 100+ daily (camp commandant reports). Crematoria burned them—52 muffles (Kremas II-V), 50-100 bodies daily, 15,000 kg wood (300 kg/body), coke at 30 tons/day (Topf records). Smoke? Van Herwaarden’s “chimneys” (IMT Vol. 6, p. 111)—sporadic, not gassing’s inferno.

Krema II—15 muffles, 1-2 bodies each, 1-2 hours (Topf’s Prüfer: 1/hour max). Max 360 daily, not 25,000. AR camps—open pits, no ovens—800,000 needs impossible wood hauls. Typhus fits—tens of thousands, not millions.

I’ve evidenced it. Delousing chambers (HCN traces, specs), typhus deaths (logs, cremation rates), and hard limits (oven capacity). It's ironic because you are the one deflecting (5-7 minutes multiple corpses? laughable), HCN gaps (640 vs. 900 µg/kg), and typhus records. “I don’t know what percentage” is a cop-out, you can’t quantify gassing because the evidence leans my way. I’m not refusing your “proof” you are refusing to face the reality of your ridiculous beliefs.




You said

I am waiting for you to name, quote and link to a crematorium worker. You say there are hundreds of them and since they worked inside the Kremas, they are eyewitnesses.

Joseph Burg, a Jewish survivor who interviewed crematoria workers post-war. In a 1988 testimony said workers he spoke to at Auschwitz-Birkenau denied gassings in the Kremas, claiming they burned typhus victims. Quote: “They told me the crematoria were for the dead from disease, not gas chambers.” No mass gassing, just cremation of natural deaths—typhus, starvation, exhaustion. Supported by documentary evidence and even the cracked codes by the British.

Van Herwaarden was at the camp from December 1942 to January 1945. The Kremas operated for about 18 months 1943-4. Exactly where she was living and working during that period is unknown. As an Austrian criminal prisoner, she was not subject to the same conditions as the Jewish prisoners. She stated she was told she would be gassed on arrival, but with that not happening, and when she arrived, only very limited gassing operations had started, she would think of them as distant rumours. Her access to the Central Sauna and other care was because she was a privileged prisoner. She worked with other privileged prisoners, including some Jews.

How can you not wrap your head around such a simple concept? She was in Birkenau’s women’s camp (BIa/BIb), 500-1,000 meters from Kremas II/III, Gassing 25,000 daily (1943-44 peak) means 7.5 million kg of wood (300 kg/body) and 52 muffles roaring smoke and a horrible stench would blanket the camp. Her testimony: “I saw smoking chimneys, but I thought it was a factory.” Typhus deaths are 15,000 in 1942 (camp logs)—burned at 50-100 daily, need 15,000 kg wood—sporadic smoke, fits her vague note. Privilege doesn’t blind her to the insane levels of both smoke and stench that would be around the camp.

Both her and Olszuk are testimony to how the secrecy that the Nazis operated the camps under, worked at the time. They are witnesses who are relating what they knew and saw at the time, without adding information they subsequently found out about. Witnesses will do that, add information to their testimony as if they knew it at the time, when they found out about it later.

You relying on secrecy is so pathetic and shows really how weak your case is to anyone reading this. The scale of the gassings defies concealment. If Birkenau’s Kremas II-V gassed 25,000 daily (mainstream peak, 1943-44), that’s over 1,000 bodies per hour across 52 muffles.

Birkenau’s Kremas weren’t invisible dude. Krema II and III sat at the camp’s northwest, 200-300 meters from the main ramp where trains unloaded (camp maps, Pressac’s Technique and Operation). Trees and fences (1943 aerial photos) offered partial screening, but 52 muffles roaring—each at 800-1,000°C (Topf specs)—emit heat, noise, and plumes no wall hides. Van Herwaarden, working with “privileged” prisoners, had Central Sauna access 500 meters from Krema IV. She’d hear ovens, smell burning, see smoke columns. TII’s killing zone was 200 meters from the reception area (Yad Vashem layout) Olszuk’s “distress” proximity means he’d catch the pits burning 2,000 daily. Secrecy cannot be your excuse dude, drop it, it's a terrible argument.

Van Herwaarden’s “smoking chimneys” and Olszuk’s “clothing burned” aren’t gassing clues, they actually match delousing and typhus. Auschwitz used 19 tons of Zyklon B (1942-44, NI-9912) for lice. Clothes burned post-fumigation (Degesch manuals), as Olszuk saw. Chimneys smoked from 15,000 typhus dead (1942 logs)—50-100 daily, 1-2 per muffle, 1-2 hours (Topf capacity). That’s sporadic, not constant. Her “factory” guess and his “distress” fit the chaos with the Typhus Epidemics. British POWs such as Charles Coward, in "The Password is Courage" saw disease deaths, not gassings. Secrecy didn’t need to hide what wasn’t there.

You clearly have zero clue on this subject and refuse to engage honestly. Either engage honestly and back up your claims, or quit replying.

[Nessie]

You said

I do not know what percentage of Zyklon B was used for gassing people. I have provided extensive documentary and forensic evidence, you just refuse to accept I have, as you deflect from your inability to evidence what did happen. You call yourself WW2History, but you fail in the basic task of any historian, you cannot evidence what happened.

You believe the tradtional Holocaust narrative from the looks of it, where do you deviate?

There are many replies you made not worth replying to, for they are simply your opinions and unsubstantiated.

You have dodged my point that you fail as an investigator.

Wansee

"Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.
The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)"

When I read this, I don’t see an explicit call for mass murder through gas chambers or firing squads. Instead, I see a plan for forced labor—harsh, brutal labor. If they wanted to wipe everyone out right away, why bother talking about "work columns" or "appropriate labor" I don’t see any mention of extermination camps or gas chambers. The entire conference is focused on deportation "to the East" and labor allocation. That lines up with a policy of exploitation and deportation more than immediate annihilation.

I do not see an explicit call either, I see this "The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly...". Those not eliminated by work, will be eliminated by other means.

Wannsee goes into no detail about "the evacuation of the Jews to the East" and where they will go and who is responsible for their accommodation etc. There is no reference to any form of resettlement.

You said

The EG were not just shooting Jews who had ambushed soldiers, they were shooting all of them. Both the EG reports and Wannsee Minutes are clear, remove the Jews until none are left. There is evidence in the east that the Jewish population plummeted and that there was a lot of support from local people, such that many joined with the Nazis in shooting the Jews.

The protocol talks about deporting Jews “to the East” for labor, with “a large portion” expected to die from “natural causes” during road work. Harsh labor plan exploitation, not extermination. The interpretation says it’s “clear” the goal was to remove all Jews until none remain, implying total annihilation. But that's simply your interpretation.

If the plan was to kill every last Jew, why focus on labor columns? Why not just say “liquidate”? This was a private meeting—Heydrich, Eichmann, no need for euphemisms, “remove” here means displacement—pushing Jews out of German space.

The claim is they were “shooting all Jews,” not just threats like ambushers is utterly wrong.

EM No. 20: 11 Jews and 1 Ukrainian shot for murdering 150 Ukrainians in Stryi. EM No. 47: 2 Jewish Communists ambushing troops—executed. EM No. 131: a Jew with enough strychnine to poison 1,000—killed. These aren’t random Jews; they’re targeted for specific acts—arson, sabotage, partisan ties, NKVD links. EM No. 133 lists Jews shot for explosives, hiding outside ghettos, or propaganda—not just for being Jewish. Some cases are flimsy, like “price-gouging” in No. 146, but I still see reasons given, not blanket massacres. If the EG’s job was to wipe out every Jew, why bother documenting these justifications? This is wartime reprisals against enemies, Jews often among them, than a systematic “kill all” genocide.

Headland’s Messages of Murder pegs the EG toll at 1.1 million—Jews and non-Jews. He admits the reports are a mess: numbers don’t add up, commanders exaggerated kills, no clear total possible. Mattogno hammers also says the data’s “chaotic,” totals clash with details, reliability’s dubious. Maybe they hit thousands, but “all of them”?

The EG assumption death count by Headland is 1.1 million which includes everyone—partisans, communists, locals. Look at No. 146: Jews and Russians shot together for partisan work. No. 92: a half-Jew and NKVD collaborators executed.

"The EG were not just shooting Jews who had ambushed soldiers"

Substantiate that claim that the majority were done as such by the EG.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... rt101.html

"Sonderkommando 4a in collaboration with Einsatzgruppe HQ and two Kommandos of police regiment South, executed 33,771 Jews in Kiev on September 29 and 30, 1941."

That was everyone. No one was spared.

"In the period covered by the report, the towns of Nikolayev and Kherson in particular were freed of Jews."

They were wiping out entire populations, such that in January 1942, Wannsee reported that Estonia was already free of Jews.

You said

The documentary and forensic evidence corroborates the witnesses. Archaeological excavations have traced huge areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains, making them the largest mass grave sites in history. No other mass death has produce that amount of disturbed ground for burials. You cherry-pick the most minimal dig, to suggest only minimal remains were found.

When you say something, do as I do and provide a source or link.

Links to the archaeological evidence here. You can log in to get the links, of use the summaries to search for them.

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... acbdbc0fb7

You said

After complaining about incentivised testimony, you switch to complaining about coerced testimony. Both are wrong, but there is a way of determining whether the testimony is truthful or not and how accurate it is. Corroboration. You evidence that no matter the circumstances under which testimony was obtained, Nazis either denied knowledge of, responsibility for, or admitted to, gassings. No one ever came up with another process taking place, inside those places. That is why revisionists fall apart and end up with all sorts of competing theories, when asked to evidence and prove what happened.

I find this ironic when you've provided none. Where is your forensic and primary documentary evidence for gas chambers as Auschwitz? You've just been talking and stating opinions with no substance.

Here is a link to documentary, witness and forensic evidence for gas chambers at A-B;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

You said

A contradictory witness is one who says something that is opposite to the given narrative.

Each witness deviates from the narrative’s expected uniformity—location, mechanics, numbers, timing, effects. “Opposite” means their claims can’t coexist with the standard story without breaking it. If Cohen’s 750 fit but Müller’s 3,000 do too, the chamber’s size or purpose shifts. If gas drops directly (Nadjari) but also through pillars (Tauber), the method’s inconsistent. They change the entire death count, which you've also failed to tell me what you believe the death count is. A contradictory witness, per your definition, says something opposite to the given story—and these do, with its mechanics, scale, or methods. That’s why they’re contradictions, plain and simple.

They are not contradictions, they are differing versions of the same event, and different witnesses will give different versions. A contradiction would be witnesses who say the opposite of each other, not who agree in the main part, but vary in the details. Two witnesses who say Zyklon B was dropped into the chambers agree. If they then vary as to how the Zyklon B was dropped in, that is a variation, a difference, not a contradiction.

Again, let us go to Nurmeberg for witnesses you love to use, electric zappers, atomic bomb, brain-basher, tree-climbing killings, human skin mass production, steam chambers, are all these true as well? No evidence supports electric devices, an atomic bomb (Germany couldn’t build one), or a pedal-driven machine killing 840,000. Steam at Treblinka?

You are lying when you claim I love to use witness who have said any of the above. In fact, I have never used such a witness, as they give hearsay evidence.

You said

That is what you like to think. But, there is forensic evidence of Zyklon B being used at the Kremas, huge areas of buried cremated remains at the AR camps and documents recording mass transports to those places and the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas.

Yes delousing chambers existed and many people died from Typhus. Zyklon B was a pesticide used across camps for delousing clothes, bedding, and barracks to fight typhus, which was rampant. The Kremas had delousing chambers; blueprints and documents show them, like the “Entlausungskammer” in Krema I. Traces of hydrogen cyanide (HCN, Zyklon B’s active ingredient) in the ruins? That’s expected, delousing left residues too. The 640 µg/kg peak in Krema II is an outlier—most samples were 0-50 µg/kg, often undetectable. Homicidal gassing, per the narrative, happened hundreds of times (Höss claimed 400+ uses), with 5-7 kg of Zyklon B per gassing (IMT testimony). That’s a lot of HCN, the lethal dose is 300 ppm in air, achieved in minutes with 1-2 kg in a 200 m³ chamber. Repeated exposure should bind HCN to iron in walls (forming Prussian Blue or other compounds), leaving higher residues. Delousing was used in higher doses (10-20 g/m³) for hours—explaining the 900 µg/kg in Block 3. The Krakow levels in Kremas are closer to incidental exposure than mass gassing’s scale. And this is from The Krakow Institute. Delousing chambers consistently showed 300-900 µg/kg—orders of magnitude above Krema II’s average.

If the Kremas had delousing chambers inside them, why do they not show Prussian blue staining as the actual delousing chambers at the camp show? Leuchter and Rudolf are certain they have proved the Kremas were never used for gassings, let alone delousing. Why build delousing chambers and then more delousing chambers inside the Kremas? Name a witness who worked inside a Krema who saw clothing being deloused there.

As for the “huge areas of buried cremated remains” at Aktion Reinhard (AR) camps, there are ash and bone fragments—ground-penetrating radar and digs, and found pits. But “huge” is vague, and the numbers don’t add up to the millions. Treblinka’s pits cover maybe 20,000 square meters—big, but cremating 800,000 (per mainstream) would need industrial-scale ovens, not the open pits described. Wood requirements alone—300 kg per body, per incineration studies—mean millions of tons of logs, yet no massive deforestation or supply records exist nearby. Auschwitz had crematoria because disease killed thousands—1942-43 typhus epidemics wiped out tens of thousands, per camp records (e.g., 15,000+ deaths logged in 1942). Bodies were burned to stop contagion—same at AR camps, which were transit or labor hubs hit by outbreaks. The remains prove deaths, not gassing. No chemical analysis ties those ashes to cyanide—just burning, which fits disease control, not extermination.

TII's 20,000m2 makes it the largest mass grave site in history. Even WWI mass grave sites, where mostly, each body is individually interred in a coffin, are rarely as large as TII. There was no need to deforest, when Polish woodyards could supply wood to the camps by rail. A-B recorded high Kremas use during periods where there was no typhus outbreaks, primarily the Hungarian and Lodz transports. You are theorising, not investigating, you lack evidence.

Quite the opposite, the US sent a team of forensics investigators into the camps headed by Dr. Charles Larson. They conducted more than 100 autopsies at Dachau and twenty other camps. Not a single body showed signs of poisoning of any sort. Larson wrote a book, ‘Crime Doctor’, which is available on Amazon.

The Nazis cremated the gassed. Gassing stopped at Auschwitz in January 1945, so Larson would never had been able to get a gased corpse to autopsy later on that year.

“I did a lot of toxicological analysis to determine the facts and removed organs from a cross-section of about 30 or 40 bodies and sent them into Paris to the Army's First Medical Laboratory for analysis, since I lacked the proper facilities in the field. The reports came back negative. I could not find where any of these people had been poisoned.”

In an interview with the Wichita Eagle, 1 April 1980, he called part of the holocaust a hoax.

Larson has talked little publicly about the war experience. One reason for his silence has been that his autopsy findings conflicted with the widely held belief that most Jews in Nazi camps were exterminated by gassing, shooting or poisoning.

Larson said…most died as a result of the conditions to which they were subjected rather than mass exterminations… autopsies showed that "death by gassing and shooting were rare. Never was a case of poisoning uncovered."

(Jane Floerchinger, "Concentration Camp Conditions Killed Most Inmates, Doctor Says," The Wichita Eagle, April 1, 1980, p. 4C.)

A firsthand with the bodies itself?

The only corpses that would have been available for him to autopsy, had died months after all gassing operations had ended. You clearly have no idea about chronology.

You said

That is what you like to think. But, there is forensic evidence of Zyklon B being used at the Kremas, huge areas of buried cremated remains at the AR camps and documents recording mass transports to those places and the construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas.

“Documents recording mass transports to those places” is your next point. The documents clearly show movement, not murder. The Höfle Telegram lists 1.27 million Jews “arrived” at AR camps by 1942. Arrived, yes—but killed? It doesn’t say. You assume they vanished into gas chambers, but no follow-up orders or death tallies confirm it. German rail records (like the Fahrplananordnung schedules) show trains to Treblinka, Belzec, Auschwitz—hundreds of thousands moved. But they also show outbound trains—e.g., Auschwitz to subcamps like Blechhammer or even Minsk, per survivor accounts and camp logs. Why transport people just to kill them? Typhus explains it better. Camps were quarantine zones or labor pools. The Wannsee Protocol (1942) talks deportation “to the East” for work, with “natural reduction” (disease, exhaustion). Mass transports fit that, Jews died en route or in camps from typhus, not gas. The documents don’t say “gas chambers”; they say “evacuation” or “labor deployment”, which I’d take them at face value over your insane assumptions.

The transport documents are circumstantial evidence, consistent with the mass gassings, as they record mass arrivals at the camps, with no corresponding mass departures. For millions, the records of their existence end at those places. You clearly have no idea about circumstantial evidence.

“construction of gas chambers inside the Kremas.” Assuming you are leaning on Krema II’s “Leichenkeller” (corpse cellar) labeled as a “Vergasungskeller” (gassing cellar) in one 1943 document? “Vergasung” can mean fumigation—delousing with gas, not killing people. Krema I had a known delousing room; Krema II/III’s underground cellars were ventilated for storage or disinfection—HCN needs air circulation, which fits delousing specs (10 air changes/hour, per Degesch manuals).

They prove the Kremas had gas chambers built inside them. Your delousing claims are contradicted by Leuchter and Rudolf and the lack of Prussian blue staining.

Witnesses like Höss claimed gassing, but we both agreed he lied, and was coerced under torture.

You are lying that I agree Hoess lied.

No sealed doors or high HCN venting in “gas chambers” vs. delousing rooms support my view.

There are documents recording the construction of gas tight doors and a ventilation system. Witnesses also speak to such.

The Kremas burned bodies, typhus victims piled up. The documentary and forensic evidence support disinfection, not extermination.

The witness, documentary and forensic evidence support mass gassing of people. You cannot prove anything else took place.

Revisionist are not a monolith, and my case is far more convincing to, what cannot be better described than your yapping of talking points everyone learned in Highschool, rather than an actual critical view of events.

You said

We do not know how proximate Van Herwaarden was to the Kremas. We do know from documentary evidence that activity there was to be kept physically obscured from the rest of the camp and operations were not to be spoken about openly. Oslzuk did speak to hearing people in distress inside TII. As for smoke, the statements from those two are very limited, but Van Herwaarden did speak of smoking chimneys, but that may have been Monowitz and Olszuk spoke of clothing being burned. Regarding the supposed chaos, there is a lot of evidence of how the Nazis kept control of arrivals and how organised they were, to prevent chaos.

I’d argue proximity isn’t necessarily the only issue—scale is. Van Herwaarden testified at Nuremberg as a Dutch Jewess in Birkenau. She was likely in the women’s camp, 500-1,000 meters from Kremas II/III. The traditional holocaust narrative claims 25,000 gassed and cremated daily—over 1,000 per hour. That’s 7.5 million kg of wood daily (300 kg/body) plus coke for 52 - ovens (52 muffles in Kremas II/III).

Even with trees or walls for “obscuring,” smoke would blanket Birkenau, visible and smellable from kilometers away, not just 500 meters.

“We don’t know her proximity” dodges the point, 25,000 bodies daily isn’t subtle. Documentary “obscuring” can’t mask that output.

Her proximity is very much the issue. If she said that she had seen mass gassings, you would use her proximity to prove she could not have. She was in a different camp, so of course she did not see anything about the Birkenau Kremas.

You said

I believe that multiple corpses were cremated at a time, but not constantly at that rate. The 5 to 7 minutes is an average of multiple corpse cremations, over half an hour, or longer, not a complete cremation to ash of one corpse.https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

5-7 minutes to “burn one corpse in a muffle.” Modern crematoria take 60-90 minutes per body at 1,400-1,800°F (760-982°C) to reduce it to ash—bones included (per Cremation Association of North America). Auschwitz’s Topf ovens (Krema II/III, 52 muffles total) hit 800-1,000°C with coke fuel. A single body—70 kg average—needs 1-2 hours to combust fully; fat burns first, then muscle, then bones calcify.

Tauber’s “5-7 minutes” per corpse, even as an “average” in a multi-body charge, defies thermodynamics. Flesh doesn’t vanish that fast—4-5 bodies (280-350 kg) in one muffle over 40 minutes? That’s 8-10 minutes per body—still impossible. If you are so confident it is possible try it today with the same metrics, shock the world. Also, did you keep in mind that the Crematoria were not in service permanently? But often broke down? Crematorium I which had been taken into service on 15 March 1943 was already damaged after nine days, and the repair work only “neared completion” on 18th of July.

Tauber mentions "few minute breaks" with 4-5 corpses per muffle, two charges per hour , with breaks. Krema II had 15 muffles (5 triple-muffle ovens). That’s 60-75 bodies per charge, 120-150 per hour, or 2,880-3,600 daily at 24 hours. The holocaust narrative says 25,000 daily—way beyond this. But even 2,880 is laughable. And “breaks”? Crematoria burned typhus victims, not gassed millions. Auschwitz logs show 15,000+ typhus deaths in 1942, 50-100 daily across 52 muffles (Kremas II-V). That’s 1-2 bodies per muffle every 1-2 hours—doable, with smoke and ash matching Van Herwaarden’s “smoking chimneys” (See IMT Vol. 6, p. 111). Tauber’s 4-5 per muffle, 40 minutes, aims for 1-1.5 million (Piper’s total)—25 times higher. Wood needs: 300 kg/body x 2,880 = 864,000 kg daily. No forest or rail records support that. Typhus cremations need a fraction—15,000 kg daily.

Also, his “5-7 minutes” and “4-5 per muffle” clash with Höss (1-2 hours per cycle, coerced testimony) and oven specs (Topf engineer Kurt Prüfer: 1 body/hour max). The claim’s “average over 40 minutes” is a desperate patch Tauber didn’t say that; he implied per-corpse speed. Contradictions with other witnesses (Müller: 3,000 daily, not 2,880) and no physical evidence (Krema ruins show wear, not super-speed burning) sink it. HCN traces (Krakow 1994, 0-640 µg/kg) fit delousing, not gassing chambers. : His math is a clown show dude, 4 corpses in 30 minutes is 7.5 minutes each, not 30. Tauber’s 5-7 minutes isn’t an “average” over 40 minutes (his own quote says 40 per charge); it’s a per-corpse claim, and 30 minutes doesn’t fix it. It’s still too fast.

Even if I grant his 30 minutes per 4 corpses (not Tauber’s 40-minute charge), it’s still nonsense. Modern crematoria take 60-90 minutes per body at 1,400-1,800°F. Auschwitz ovens hit 800-1,000°C with coke. Four emaciated bodies (40 kg each, 160 kg total) need at least 1 hour—25 kg of coke per muffle/hour (Topf specs). His “split process” doesn’t change that—30 minutes gets you charred flesh, not ash ready for the next batch. Krema II’s 15 muffles at 4 bodies every 30 minutes = 120 per hour, 2,880 daily—far short of 25,000, and still impossible without infinite fuel and space.

Tauber said “5 to 7 minutes to burn one corpse” and “40 minutes per charge” of 4-5 bodies—self-contradictory. The response’s “averaging” is a retrofit; Tauber meant per-body speed, not a phase. Höss (1-2 hours/cycle) and Prüfer (1 body/hour) expose the obvious gap. HCN traces (Krakow 1994, 0-640 µg/kg) show delousing, not gassing chambers. Quit with this and substantiate your insane claims that you yourself claim to believe.

Tauber did not say it took 5 to 7 minutes to entirely cremate a corpse.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

"In continuous operation, we could burn two charges per hour. According to the regulations, were supposed to charge the muffles every half hour. Ober Capo August explained to us that, according to the calculations and plans for this crematorium, 5 to 7 minutes was allowed to burn one corpse in a muffle."

Two charges an hour, so 30 minutes for the first corpses in the top oven. They then fall, get raked through the grill to the bottom part of the oven and the next set of corpses is introduced and so on every 30 mimutes. That means between top and bottom over, the corpses spend at least 30 minutes being cremated. The 5 to 7 is an average per corpse, where 4 to 5 corpses are being introduced every half hour.

You said

I do not know what percentage of Zyklon B was used for gassing people. I have provided extensive documentary and forensic evidence, you just refuse to accept I have, as you deflect from your inability to evidence what did happen. You call yourself WW2History, but you fail in the basic task of any historian, you cannot evidence what happened.

Firstly, not a historian. Secondly, Inability to evidence?

Krema I’s “Entlausungskammer” (blueprints), Block 3’s high HCN (900 µg/kg, Krakow). Zyklon B shipments—19 tons to Auschwitz (1942-44, Nuremberg Doc. NI-9912), used across camps (e.g., Majdanek delousing logs). Degesch specs: 10-20 g/m³ for lice, hours-long cycles—matches high residues, not Krema II’s scraps (0-50 µg/kg average).

Auschwitz death books (1942-43, partial)—15,000+ typhus deaths, 20-50% mortality in outbreaks (Red Cross reports). Epidemics raged—1942 peak, 100+ daily (camp commandant reports). Crematoria burned them—52 muffles (Kremas II-V), 50-100 bodies daily, 15,000 kg wood (300 kg/body), coke at 30 tons/day (Topf records). Smoke? Van Herwaarden’s “chimneys” (IMT Vol. 6, p. 111)—sporadic, not gassing’s inferno.

Krema II—15 muffles, 1-2 bodies each, 1-2 hours (Topf’s Prüfer: 1/hour max). Max 360 daily, not 25,000. AR camps—open pits, no ovens—800,000 needs impossible wood hauls. Typhus fits—tens of thousands, not millions.

I’ve evidenced it. Delousing chambers (HCN traces, specs), typhus deaths (logs, cremation rates), and hard limits (oven capacity). It's ironic because you are the one deflecting (5-7 minutes multiple corpses? laughable), HCN gaps (640 vs. 900 µg/kg), and typhus records. “I don’t know what percentage” is a cop-out, you can’t quantify gassing because the evidence leans my way. I’m not refusing your “proof” you are refusing to face the reality of your ridiculous beliefs.

That is the theory, but you have no witnesses and the circumstantial evidence does not fit, such as high Krema use when there was no typhus epidemic, but there were mass arrivals. Your delousing theory also does not fit with other revisionist claims about use, that include showers and bomb shelters.

You said

I am waiting for you to name, quote and link to a crematorium worker. You say there are hundreds of them and since they worked inside the Kremas, they are eyewitnesses.

Joseph Burg, a Jewish survivor who interviewed crematoria workers post-war. In a 1988 testimony said workers he spoke to at Auschwitz-Birkenau denied gassings in the Kremas, claiming they burned typhus victims. Quote: “They told me the crematoria were for the dead from disease, not gas chambers.” No mass gassing, just cremation of natural deaths—typhus, starvation, exhaustion. Supported by documentary evidence and even the cracked codes by the British.

You said "When you say something, do as I do and provide a source or link." Where is your source or link for the Krema worker statements? I want to read them.

Van Herwaarden was at the camp from December 1942 to January 1945. The Kremas operated for about 18 months 1943-4. Exactly where she was living and working during that period is unknown. As an Austrian criminal prisoner, she was not subject to the same conditions as the Jewish prisoners. She stated she was told she would be gassed on arrival, but with that not happening, and when she arrived, only very limited gassing operations had started, she would think of them as distant rumours. Her access to the Central Sauna and other care was because she was a privileged prisoner. She worked with other privileged prisoners, including some Jews.

How can you not wrap your head around such a simple concept? She was in Birkenau’s women’s camp (BIa/BIb), 500-1,000 meters from Kremas II/III, Gassing 25,000 daily (1943-44 peak) means 7.5 million kg of wood (300 kg/body) and 52 muffles roaring smoke and a horrible stench would blanket the camp. Her testimony: “I saw smoking chimneys, but I thought it was a factory.” Typhus deaths are 15,000 in 1942 (camp logs)—burned at 50-100 daily, need 15,000 kg wood—sporadic smoke, fits her vague note. Privilege doesn’t blind her to the insane levels of both smoke and stench that would be around the camp.

Chronology. Prove she was in Birkenau when the Kremas were operational.

Both her and Olszuk are testimony to how the secrecy that the Nazis operated the camps under, worked at the time. They are witnesses who are relating what they knew and saw at the time, without adding information they subsequently found out about. Witnesses will do that, add information to their testimony as if they knew it at the time, when they found out about it later.

You relying on secrecy is so pathetic and shows really how weak your case is to anyone reading this. The scale of the gassings defies concealment. If Birkenau’s Kremas II-V gassed 25,000 daily (mainstream peak, 1943-44), that’s over 1,000 bodies per hour across 52 muffles.

Birkenau’s Kremas weren’t invisible dude. Krema II and III sat at the camp’s northwest, 200-300 meters from the main ramp where trains unloaded (camp maps, Pressac’s Technique and Operation). Trees and fences (1943 aerial photos) offered partial screening, but 52 muffles roaring—each at 800-1,000°C (Topf specs)—emit heat, noise, and plumes no wall hides. Van Herwaarden, working with “privileged” prisoners, had Central Sauna access 500 meters from Krema IV. She’d hear ovens, smell burning, see smoke columns. TII’s killing zone was 200 meters from the reception area (Yad Vashem layout) Olszuk’s “distress” proximity means he’d catch the pits burning 2,000 daily. Secrecy cannot be your excuse dude, drop it, it's a terrible argument.

Van Herwaarden’s “smoking chimneys” and Olszuk’s “clothing burned” aren’t gassing clues, they actually match delousing and typhus. Auschwitz used 19 tons of Zyklon B (1942-44, NI-9912) for lice. Clothes burned post-fumigation (Degesch manuals), as Olszuk saw. Chimneys smoked from 15,000 typhus dead (1942 logs)—50-100 daily, 1-2 per muffle, 1-2 hours (Topf capacity). That’s sporadic, not constant. Her “factory” guess and his “distress” fit the chaos with the Typhus Epidemics. British POWs such as Charles Coward, in "The Password is Courage" saw disease deaths, not gassings. Secrecy didn’t need to hide what wasn’t there.

You clearly have zero clue on this subject and refuse to engage honestly. Either engage honestly and back up your claims, or quit replying.

Regarding secrecy, Hofle issed an order for the AR camps;

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ss ... -july-1942

The Sobibor photos show how the camp was kept to stop people seeing inside;

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... anns-album

At Birkenau, orders spoke about secrecy of the operation of the Kremas;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"Speech of Oswald Pohl of 23 September 1942 on “special tasks, about which we do not have to speak words” [The Van Pelt report, VI Blueprints of the Genocide"

"Order from Glücks via Liebehenschel of 15 June 1943 on “special buildings” should be “located offside in accordance with their purpose and cannot be stared at by all sorts of people” [NO-1242]"

[bombsaway]

I do not see an explicit call either, I see this "The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly...". Those not eliminated by work, will be eliminated by other means.

Wannsee goes into no detail about "the evacuation of the Jews to the East" and where they will go and who is responsible for their accommodation etc. There is no reference to any form of resettlement.

We have some hints from the document which revisionists apparently find to be innocuous.

One is that Jews would prefer sterilization (never having children!) to being evacuated.

SS Gruppenfuehrer Hofmann is of the opinion that extensive use must be made of sterilization, as the Mischling, given the choice of evacuation or sterilization, would prefer to accept sterilization.

Another is that whatever it was they were going to do to the Jews, it was important not to scare the natives.

In conclusion, there was a discussion of the various possible forms which the solution might take, and here both Gauleiter Dr. Meyer and Secretary of State Dr. Buehler were of the opinion that certain preparatory work for the final solution should be carried out locally in the area concerned, but that, in doing so, alarm among the population must be avoided.

There is absolutely no mention that these Jews were going to be maintained where they were evacuated, no indications of resettlement proper.

It's comical revisionists see this as evidencing resettlement hypothesis.

[Callafangers]

I do not see an explicit call either, I see this "The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly...". Those not eliminated by work, will be eliminated by other means.

Wannsee goes into no detail about "the evacuation of the Jews to the East" and where they will go and who is responsible for their accommodation etc. There is no reference to any form of resettlement.

We have some hints from the document which revisionists apparently find to be innocuous.

*sigh*

Here is the original, 'incriminating' text from Wannsee:

In großen Arbeitskolonnen, unter Trennung der Geschlechter, werden die arbeitsfähigen Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt, wobei zweifellos ein Großteil durch natürliche Verminderung ausfallen wird. Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand wird, da es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil handelt, entsprechend behandelt werden müssen, da dieser, eine natürliche Auslese darstellend, bei Freilassung als Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues anzusprechen ist.

Here is its translation (from DeepL.com):

In large labor columns, with separation of the sexes, the able-bodied Jews will be led into these areas to build roads, whereby a large part will undoubtedly drop out through natural reduction. The eventual remainder, since it is undoubtedly the most resistant part, will have to be treated accordingly, as it represents a natural selection and can be regarded as the nucleus of a new Jewish structure upon release.

Key points:

• Jews are proposed to be led to the East in labor columns for the purpose of building roads
• They will drop out of the workforce through natural reduction (exhaustion, incapacitation, especially for those already frail or diseased) - no mention of death
• Those who remain (the strong) will have to be treated as more of a threat upon release

Sorry for the obnoxious bolding and upsizing to the key phrase above but it is one that is strangely omitted from many sources, such as USHMM which states:

In large labor columns, separated by gender, able-bodied Jews will be brought to those regions to build roads, whereby a large number will doubtlessly be lost through natural reduction. Any final remnant that survives will doubtless consist of the elements most capable of resistance. They must be dealt with appropriately, since, representing the fruit of natural selection, they are to be regarded as the core of a new Jewish revival.

Now, why on Earth would USHMM fail to mention that these prisoners were to be released, implying special measures (imprisonment, surveillance, etc.) applied thereafter?

Why are exterminationists so desperate to ascribe extreme, genocidal meaning into conversations where it is simply not there?

[Archie]

The Wannsee minutes do not fit with the supposed mass extermination plan at all. This conference was held in January of 1942, supposedly to plan out "the Final Solution" which had already been ordered. But there's nothing in the minutes to suggest this. The usual cope is to say that the Holocaust was so secret that they were careful not to reveal the "real" policy even in private internal communications, which is a conspiracy theory style argument. The orthodox side also contradicts itself by claiming that Hitler or Goebbels using ausrottung or vernichtung in public speeches should be interpreted as referring to plans for mass executions.

It is not intended to evacuate Jews over 65 years old, but to send them to an old-age ghetto - Theresienstadt is being considered for this purpose.

In addition to these age groups - of the approximately 280,000 Jews in Germany proper and Austria on 31 October 1941, approximately 30% are over 65 year old - severely wounded veterans and Jews with war decorations (Iron Cross I) will be accepted in the old-age ghettos. With this expedient solution, in one fell swoop many interventions will be prevented.

People of mixed blood of the first degree who are exempted from evacuation will be sterilized in order to prevent any offspring and to eliminate the problem of persons of mixed blood once and for all. Such sterilization will be voluntary. But it is required to remain in the Reich. The sterilized "person of mixed blood" is thereafter free of all restrictions to which he was previously subjected.

So Hitler had already ordered all the Jews to be murdered but that instead of, you know, planning any mass murder they instead debated about what to do with half-Jews, veterans, the elderly, etc. None of this is consistent with a plot to kill all the Jews.

[Archie]

I do not see an explicit call either, I see this "The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly...". Those not eliminated by work, will be eliminated by other means.

Wannsee goes into no detail about "the evacuation of the Jews to the East" and where they will go and who is responsible for their accommodation etc. There is no reference to any form of resettlement.

But that's not the story. The story is not that Jews would be sent for "labor in the East" (literal labor) and then those that survive would be eventually be dealt with. The story is that the Jews were killed upon arrival at the death camps before even leaving the General Government, especially the least able. There's no support for this at all in the Wannsee minutes.

[bombsaway]

I do not see an explicit call either, I see this "The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly...". Those not eliminated by work, will be eliminated by other means.

Wannsee goes into no detail about "the evacuation of the Jews to the East" and where they will go and who is responsible for their accommodation etc. There is no reference to any form of resettlement.

We have some hints from the document which revisionists apparently find to be innocuous.

*sigh*

Here is the original, 'incriminating' text from Wannsee:

In großen Arbeitskolonnen, unter Trennung der Geschlechter, werden die arbeitsfähigen Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt, wobei zweifellos ein Großteil durch natürliche Verminderung ausfallen wird. Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand wird, da es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil handelt, entsprechend behandelt werden müssen, da dieser, eine natürliche Auslese darstellend, bei Freilassung als Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues anzusprechen ist.

Here is its translation (from DeepL.com):

In large labor columns, with separation of the sexes, the able-bodied Jews will be led into these areas to build roads, whereby a large part will undoubtedly drop out through natural reduction. The eventual remainder, since it is undoubtedly the most resistant part, will have to be treated accordingly, as it represents a natural selection and can be regarded as the nucleus of a new Jewish structure upon release.

Key points:

• Jews are proposed to be led to the East in labor columns for the purpose of building roads
• They will drop out of the workforce through natural reduction (exhaustion, incapacitation, especially for those already frail or diseased) - no mention of death
• Those who remain (the strong) will have to be treated as more of a threat upon release

Sorry for the obnoxious bolding and upsizing to the key phrase above but it is one that is strangely omitted from many sources, such as USHMM which states:

In large labor columns, separated by gender, able-bodied Jews will be brought to those regions to build roads, whereby a large number will doubtlessly be lost through natural reduction. Any final remnant that survives will doubtless consist of the elements most capable of resistance. They must be dealt with appropriately, since, representing the fruit of natural selection, they are to be regarded as the core of a new Jewish revival.

Now, why on Earth would USHMM fail to mention that these prisoners were to be released, implying special measures (imprisonment, surveillance, etc.) applied thereafter?

Why are exterminationists so desperate to ascribe extreme, genocidal meaning into conversations where it is simply not there?

oh boy

https://g.co/gemini/share/0d7bf8f44812